I'm the S5 coupe owner you helped with my ordered S5 showed up with multiple dents in my Audi. We plan to replace my wife's A4 with the new SQ9 which I have been following for at least the last couple of years. One of our requirements is our new car had to have the new Apple CarPlay Ultra, I've read this morning that Audi has backed out of their original commitment to the enhanced CarPlay. If that decision is true Audi will not be included in our search after owning (5) Audis we're moving on Not a big fan of Kia but Kia has now been added to our list. I thought you should know our feelings. Thank you Russell. PS, I still love my red S5 coupe which might be my last race car! Sent to an Audi VP I know.
I wonder if this will follow the same trajectory as CarPlay and Apple Pay... lots of resistance, lots of "better solutions" and finally available everywhere.
Both Renault and Volvo are mentioned in the article, and both of them are flagship partners implementing Android Automotive. So it is not a question of total control, I guess, but in what way the product is offered.
There's a good reason for that. Android Automotive does not require the manufacturer to commit to Google services. It can offer most if not all the same UX benefits of Car Play Ultra while letting the manufacturers determine the services. Android Automotive is also user-friendly for both iPhone and Android owners. Want to use CarPlay under Android Automotive, no problem.
I don't know whether Car Play Ultra offers the same freedom, but perhaps someone here knows the facts. My sense is it does not, thus more reticence on the part of automakers to rely on Car Play Ultra integration.
I have a car with Android Automotive (Perhaps the most confusing name ever) and it's an abomination. And no it does not, at least on GM, work with CarPlay or Android Auto. The whole system in confusing to use and horribly laid out and after over a week at the dealer, over the course of a year, for software updates, is still buggy as hell. I would suggest that anyone thinking of buying a car with "Automotive" consider their tolerance and patience for crappy software. And to be clear, The UX benefits are not what make CarPlay so useful. It's the fact that I have my information, usage records, everything on one device - my phone and don't have to transfer it between the car and my phone. I'm not an Android user and probably never will be so I don't know if "Automotive" makes this simpler with those phones. But, I'm pretty sure it would do it through Google's cloud services with all privacy concerns and connection issues that implies as you must be logging into Google all the time to us any of there services in the car.
Google is not restricting it, nor does Android Automotive. Using Android Automotive does not require the OEM to use Google services either, so your guess would be inaccurate. Whether to use Google Services is a separate decision. It's GM who made a choice not to allow either Android Auto or Apple CarPlay. Oddly IMO, customers overall seem fine with it. Weird.
Anyway, with all the confusion around Android Automotive and Android Auto, just search "what is Android Automotive" using your favorite browser, so the differences are more clear.
it is ludicrous for a car manufacturer to give Apple access to all its car systems, which will invariably lead to Apple becoming the gatekeeper to the entire tech stack of a car. This in addition to the branding impact. CarPlay is not the end of evolution, for example, the music app is well on CarPlay. Audi music controls are much better.
Who said all? We’re talking about user-facing information systems. Car manufacturers have farmed out components and subsystems from day one. Brakes, batteries, transmissions, gauges, radios, generators, on and on. More to the point, putting Bose, Harmon-Kardon and many other name brand audio systems is a selling point. Why should this be any different?
CarPlay Ultra is not just the display of car metrics, it also is the interface with, e.g., A/C, suspension settings, drive modes, alarm modes, etc. Apple CarPlay Ultra is upstream from the control systems and chips; before long, Apple will be dictating which chips the car manufacturers should use and what software architecture they should build. There is a big difference between buying batteries from Bosch and letting Apple control the central nervous system of the car.
Are you sure of that. I thought CarPlayUltra is offering an API to the car internal system, but it does leave the choice of any car component to the car manufacturer.
But I do agree that car manufacturers are reluctant to hand over control to an external party who manages the display and its UI for everything that is not music. What if Car Play Ultra drives, for whatever reason, a car critical component in a such a way that the car is about to crash. Who will take responsibility?
The car manufacturer might not have the best skill to develop a great UI on a touch screen, but a car manufacturer has much higher skill level than Apple when it comes to handling car critical exceptions in real time.
it is ludicrous for a car manufacturer to give Apple access to all its car systems, which will invariably lead to Apple becoming the gatekeeper to the entire tech stack of a car. This in addition to the branding impact. CarPlay is not the end of evolution, for example, the music app is well on CarPlay. Audi music controls are much better.
Who said all? We’re talking about user-facing information systems. Car manufacturers have farmed out components and subsystems from day one. Brakes, batteries, transmissions, gauges, radios, generators, on and on. More to the point, putting Bose, Harmon-Kardon and many other name brand audio systems is a selling point. Why should this be any different?
CarPlay Ultra is not just the display of car metrics, it also is the interface with, e.g., A/C, suspension settings, drive modes, alarm modes, etc. Apple CarPlay Ultra is upstream from the control systems and chips; before long, Apple will be dictating which chips the car manufacturers should use and what software architecture they should build. There is a big difference between buying batteries from Bosch and letting Apple control the central nervous system of the car.
Are you sure of that. I thought CarPlayUltra is offering an API to the car internal system, but it does leave the choice of any car component to the car manufacturer.
But I do agree that car manufacturers are reluctant to hand over control to an external party who manages the display and its UI for everything that is not music. What if Car Play Ultra drives, for whatever reason, a car critical component in a such a way that the car is about to crash. Who will take responsibility?
The car manufacturer might not have the best skill to develop a great UI on a touch screen, but a car manufacturer has much higher skill level than Apple when it comes to handling car critical exceptions in real time.
I'm pretty sure that's not what Ultra is meant to do. It will Apple-ize the instrument cluster display (with carmaker-branded customization) and perhaps let you control some things like A/C via touchscreen or Siri, but I don't think they're moving control of features like adaptive cruise control, emergency braking or lane assist onto your iPhone. Displays related to these things might be tweaked with Apple fonts and color schemes, but the features themselves would still live in the car, and revert to the car's default display if your iPhone crashed while you're driving. I'm pretty sure the carmakers' and and Apple's lawyers would be in complete agreement about that.
My wife and I are not car fans. We lease a Honda out of necessity for work.
If it didn’t support Apple CarPlay, we would look elsewhere when our lease is over.
CarPlay vanilla or CarPlay Ultra really doesn’t matter as long as our iPhones connect seamlessly.
My only wish for CarPlay would be the music player interface and the way it displays music information, which currently stinks. It’s clearly designed for pop music with extremely short album, “song” titles and track information. The fact that track titles are only about 30 characters, on only one line of text, while the playback progress bar uses the entire width of the screen is ridiculous.
Both Renault and Volvo are mentioned in the article, and both of them are flagship partners implementing Android Automotive. So it is not a question of total control, I guess, but in what way the product is offered.
There's a good reason for that. Android Automotive does not require the manufacturer to commit to Google services. It can offer most if not all the same UX benefits of Car Play Ultra while letting the manufacturers determine the services. Android Automotive is also user-friendly for both iPhone and Android owners. Want to use CarPlay under Android Automotive, no problem.
I don't know whether Car Play Ultra offers the same freedom, but perhaps someone here knows the facts. My sense is it does not, thus more reticence on the part of automakers to rely on Car Play Ultra integration.
I have a car with Android Automotive (Perhaps the most confusing name ever) and it's an abomination. And no it does not, at least on GM, work with CarPlay or Android Auto. The whole system in confusing to use and horribly laid out and after over a week at the dealer, over the course of a year, for software updates, is still buggy as hell. I would suggest that anyone thinking of buying a car with "Automotive" consider their tolerance and patience for crappy software. And to be clear, The UX benefits are not what make CarPlay so useful. It's the fact that I have my information, usage records, everything on one device - my phone and don't have to transfer it between the car and my phone. I'm not an Android user and probably never will be so I don't know if "Automotive" makes this simpler with those phones. But, I'm pretty sure it would do it through Google's cloud services with all privacy concerns and connection issues that implies as you must be logging into Google all the time to us any of there services in the car.
Google is not restricting it, nor does Android Automotive. Using Android Automotive does not require the OEM to use Google services either, so your guess would be inaccurate. Whether to use Google Services is a separate decision. It's GM who made a choice not to allow either Android Auto or Apple CarPlay. Oddly IMO, customers overall seem fine with it. Weird.
Anyway, with all the confusion around Android Automotive and Android Auto, just search "what is Android Automotive" using your favorite browser, so the differences are more clear.
As has been explained before, Android Auto is like CarPlay in that it simply projects the phone’s display on the car’s screen.
Android is simply an OS that carmakers can use to run their system, just like WindowsCE used to be. Android is to Android Auto as iOS is to CarPlay. The car makers can use Android to make as crappy a system as they like. That’s not Google’s fault, it’s the car makers’.
it is ludicrous for a car manufacturer to give Apple access to all its car systems, which will invariably lead to Apple becoming the gatekeeper to the entire tech stack of a car. This in addition to the branding impact. CarPlay is not the end of evolution, for example, the music app is well on CarPlay. Audi music controls are much better.
Who said all? We’re talking about user-facing information systems. Car manufacturers have farmed out components and subsystems from day one. Brakes, batteries, transmissions, gauges, radios, generators, on and on. More to the point, putting Bose, Harmon-Kardon and many other name brand audio systems is a selling point. Why should this be any different?
CarPlay Ultra is not just the display of car metrics, it also is the interface with, e.g., A/C, suspension settings, drive modes, alarm modes, etc. Apple CarPlay Ultra is upstream from the control systems and chips; before long, Apple will be dictating which chips the car manufacturers should use and what software architecture they should build. There is a big difference between buying batteries from Bosch and letting Apple control the central nervous system of the car.
Are you sure of that. I thought CarPlayUltra is offering an API to the car internal system, but it does leave the choice of any car component to the car manufacturer.
But I do agree that car manufacturers are reluctant to hand over control to an external party who manages the display and its UI for everything that is not music. What if Car Play Ultra drives, for whatever reason, a car critical component in a such a way that the car is about to crash. Who will take responsibility?
The car manufacturer might not have the best skill to develop a great UI on a touch screen, but a car manufacturer has much higher skill level than Apple when it comes to handling car critical exceptions in real time.
I'm pretty sure that's not what Ultra is meant to do. It will Apple-ize the instrument cluster display (with carmaker-branded customization) and perhaps let you control some things like A/C via touchscreen or Siri, but I don't think they're moving control of features like adaptive cruise control, emergency braking or lane assist onto your iPhone. Displays related to these things might be tweaked with Apple fonts and color schemes, but the features themselves would still live in the car, and revert to the car's default display if your iPhone crashed while you're driving. I'm pretty sure the carmakers' and and Apple's lawyers would be in complete agreement about that.
This. If you are confused, watch one of the videos.
it is ludicrous for a car manufacturer to give Apple access to all its car systems, which will invariably lead to Apple becoming the gatekeeper to the entire tech stack of a car. This in addition to the branding impact. CarPlay is not the end of evolution, for example, the music app is well on CarPlay. Audi music controls are much better.
Who said all? We’re talking about user-facing information systems. Car manufacturers have farmed out components and subsystems from day one. Brakes, batteries, transmissions, gauges, radios, generators, on and on. More to the point, putting Bose, Harmon-Kardon and many other name brand audio systems is a selling point. Why should this be any different?
CarPlay Ultra is not just the display of car metrics, it also is the interface with, e.g., A/C, suspension settings, drive modes, alarm modes, etc. Apple CarPlay Ultra is upstream from the control systems and chips; before long, Apple will be dictating which chips the car manufacturers should use and what software architecture they should build. There is a big difference between buying batteries from Bosch and letting Apple control the central nervous system of the car.
Are you sure of that. I thought CarPlayUltra is offering an API to the car internal system, but it does leave the choice of any car component to the car manufacturer.
But I do agree that car manufacturers are reluctant to hand over control to an external party who manages the display and its UI for everything that is not music. What if Car Play Ultra drives, for whatever reason, a car critical component in a such a way that the car is about to crash. Who will take responsibility?
The car manufacturer might not have the best skill to develop a great UI on a touch screen, but a car manufacturer has much higher skill level than Apple when it comes to handling car critical exceptions in real time.
I'm pretty sure that's not what Ultra is meant to do. It will Apple-ize the instrument cluster display (with carmaker-branded customization) and perhaps let you control some things like A/C via touchscreen or Siri, but I don't think they're moving control of features like adaptive cruise control, emergency braking or lane assist onto your iPhone. Displays related to these things might be tweaked with Apple fonts and color schemes, but the features themselves would still live in the car, and revert to the car's default display if your iPhone crashed while you're driving. I'm pretty sure the carmakers' and and Apple's lawyers would be in complete agreement about that.
This. If you are confused, watch one of the videos.
As far as I can understand, one of the more obvious differences between Android Automotive and CarPlay Ultra is that Apple requires an iPhone running iOS12 or higher and Apple Services to make it work. Using Android Automotive does not mean automakers also have to accept Google Services, or that the owner must have an Android phone. But if you do have a phone it will operate the same whether it's Android or iOS. Apple CarPlay Ultra will not.
I see things as Apple trying to limit the advantages of in-vehicle smartphone use to iOS devices since the CarPlay Ultra interface won't work without one, disadvantage anyone who owns not-an-iPhone. Android Automotive doesn't care.
TLDR: Android Automotive works as the UX whether the owner has an Android phone, iPhone, or no phone at all. CarPlay Ultra will not. If my understanding is wrong, feel free to post a correction source.
it is ludicrous for a car manufacturer to give Apple access to all its car systems, which will invariably lead to Apple becoming the gatekeeper to the entire tech stack of a car. This in addition to the branding impact. CarPlay is not the end of evolution, for example, the music app is well on CarPlay. Audi music controls are much better.
Who said all? We’re talking about user-facing information systems. Car manufacturers have farmed out components and subsystems from day one. Brakes, batteries, transmissions, gauges, radios, generators, on and on. More to the point, putting Bose, Harmon-Kardon and many other name brand audio systems is a selling point. Why should this be any different?
CarPlay Ultra is not just the display of car metrics, it also is the interface with, e.g., A/C, suspension settings, drive modes, alarm modes, etc. Apple CarPlay Ultra is upstream from the control systems and chips; before long, Apple will be dictating which chips the car manufacturers should use and what software architecture they should build. There is a big difference between buying batteries from Bosch and letting Apple control the central nervous system of the car.
Are you sure of that. I thought CarPlayUltra is offering an API to the car internal system, but it does leave the choice of any car component to the car manufacturer.
But I do agree that car manufacturers are reluctant to hand over control to an external party who manages the display and its UI for everything that is not music. What if Car Play Ultra drives, for whatever reason, a car critical component in a such a way that the car is about to crash. Who will take responsibility?
The car manufacturer might not have the best skill to develop a great UI on a touch screen, but a car manufacturer has much higher skill level than Apple when it comes to handling car critical exceptions in real time.
I'm pretty sure that's not what Ultra is meant to do. It will Apple-ize the instrument cluster display (with carmaker-branded customization) and perhaps let you control some things like A/C via touchscreen or Siri, but I don't think they're moving control of features like adaptive cruise control, emergency braking or lane assist onto your iPhone. Displays related to these things might be tweaked with Apple fonts and color schemes, but the features themselves would still live in the car, and revert to the car's default display if your iPhone crashed while you're driving. I'm pretty sure the carmakers' and and Apple's lawyers would be in complete agreement about that.
This. If you are confused, watch one of the videos.
As far as I can understand, one of the more obvious differences between Android Automotive and CarPlay Ultra is that Apple requires an iPhone running iOS12 or higher and Apple Services to make it work. Using Android Automotive does not mean automakers also have to accept Google Services, or that the owner must have an Android phone. But if you do have a phone it will operate the same whether it's Android or iOS. Apple CarPlay Ultra will not.
I see things as Apple trying to limit the advantages of in-vehicle smartphone use to iOS devices since the CarPlay Ultra interface won't work without one, disadvantage anyone who owns not-an-iPhone. Android Automotive doesn't care.
TLDR: Android Automotive works as the UX whether the owner has an Android phone, iPhone, or no phone at all. CarPlay Ultra will not. If my understanding is wrong, feel free to post a correction source.
Again, you appear to be conflating the manufacturer’s use of Android Automotive OS with Android Auto and CarPlay. Yes, google totally botched the naming, since Auto is short for automotive the names are incredibly confusing but the two are separate.
The car OS, whatever it is, interfaces with either an iPhone or an Android Phone. If the car OS allows it and the phone is new enough, the driver can take advantage of CarPlay ultra features. If the phone is older or the car doesn’t allow for CarPlay Ultra features it can still use CarPlay Classic or Android Auto Note GM uses Android Automotive as an OS for its cars and doesn’t allow either CarPlay or Android Auto.
The compatibility is entirely dependent on the manufacturers implementation and decisions. Likewise, you can use Android Automotive to build either a stellar interface or the world’s crappiest interface. Google just makes the basic OS, the manufactures write the code that runs on it.
CarPlay Ultra is not an OS and is not assuming control of any of the car’s functions. It’s an extension of CarPlay whereby the car OS uses the CarPlay interface. It’s essentially a ‘skin’ for the car displays.
Until Apple can fix the random CarPlay disconnect issues, I don't want CarPlay taking over the entire car. The gauge cluster would be constantly flipping back and forth between the OEM digital gauges and Apple's digital gauges. Error is always the same, 'iPhone is not responding' and have to unplug and plug the phone back in and it reconnects, only to disconnect again, randomly at different times.
it is ludicrous for a car manufacturer to give Apple access to all its car systems, which will invariably lead to Apple becoming the gatekeeper to the entire tech stack of a car. This in addition to the branding impact. CarPlay is not the end of evolution, for example, the music app is well on CarPlay. Audi music controls are much better.
Who said all? We’re talking about user-facing information systems. Car manufacturers have farmed out components and subsystems from day one. Brakes, batteries, transmissions, gauges, radios, generators, on and on. More to the point, putting Bose, Harmon-Kardon and many other name brand audio systems is a selling point. Why should this be any different?
CarPlay Ultra is not just the display of car metrics, it also is the interface with, e.g., A/C, suspension settings, drive modes, alarm modes, etc. Apple CarPlay Ultra is upstream from the control systems and chips; before long, Apple will be dictating which chips the car manufacturers should use and what software architecture they should build. There is a big difference between buying batteries from Bosch and letting Apple control the central nervous system of the car.
Are you sure of that. I thought CarPlayUltra is offering an API to the car internal system, but it does leave the choice of any car component to the car manufacturer.
But I do agree that car manufacturers are reluctant to hand over control to an external party who manages the display and its UI for everything that is not music. What if Car Play Ultra drives, for whatever reason, a car critical component in a such a way that the car is about to crash. Who will take responsibility?
The car manufacturer might not have the best skill to develop a great UI on a touch screen, but a car manufacturer has much higher skill level than Apple when it comes to handling car critical exceptions in real time.
I'm pretty sure that's not what Ultra is meant to do. It will Apple-ize the instrument cluster display (with carmaker-branded customization) and perhaps let you control some things like A/C via touchscreen or Siri, but I don't think they're moving control of features like adaptive cruise control, emergency braking or lane assist onto your iPhone. Displays related to these things might be tweaked with Apple fonts and color schemes, but the features themselves would still live in the car, and revert to the car's default display if your iPhone crashed while you're driving. I'm pretty sure the carmakers' and and Apple's lawyers would be in complete agreement about that.
This. If you are confused, watch one of the videos.
As far as I can understand, one of the more obvious differences between Android Automotive and CarPlay Ultra is that Apple requires an iPhone running iOS12 or higher and Apple Services to make it work. Using Android Automotive does not mean automakers also have to accept Google Services, or that the owner must have an Android phone. But if you do have a phone it will operate the same whether it's Android or iOS. Apple CarPlay Ultra will not.
I see things as Apple trying to limit the advantages of in-vehicle smartphone use to iOS devices since the CarPlay Ultra interface won't work without one, disadvantage anyone who owns not-an-iPhone. Android Automotive doesn't care.
TLDR: Android Automotive works as the UX whether the owner has an Android phone, iPhone, or no phone at all. CarPlay Ultra will not. If my understanding is wrong, feel free to post a correction source.
Again, you appear to be conflating the manufacturer’s use of Android Automotive OS with Android Auto and CarPlay. Yes, google totally botched the naming, since Auto is short for automotive the names are incredibly confusing but the two are separate.
The car OS, whatever it is, interfaces with either an iPhone or an Android Phone. If the car OS allows it and the phone is new enough, the driver can take advantage of CarPlay ultra features. If the phone is older or the car doesn’t allow for CarPlay Ultra features it can still use CarPlay Classic or Android Auto Note GM uses Android Automotive as an OS for its cars and doesn’t allow either CarPlay or Android Auto.
The compatibility is entirely dependent on the manufacturers implementation and decisions. Likewise, you can use Android Automotive to build either a stellar interface or the world’s crappiest interface. Google just makes the basic OS, the manufactures write the code that runs on it.
CarPlay Ultra is not an OS and is not assuming control of any of the car’s functions. It’s an extension of CarPlay whereby the car OS uses the CarPlay interface. It’s essentially a ‘skin’ for the car displays.
“ In contrast to Android Auto, Android Automotive is a full operating system running on the vehicle's device, not relying on a smartphone to operate.”
I certainly understand the distinctions, but my comments were mostly directed to forum readers who don't.
This is the essential paragraph. Note I did not reference the OS but instead the UX. I've never stated that CarPlay Ultra is an OS. TLDR: Android Automotive works as the UX whether the owner has an Android phone, iPhone, or no phone at all. CarPlay Ultra will not. If my understanding is wrong, feel free to post a correction source.
So Is my understanding wrong? Further, Android Automotive allows for vehicle friendly apps to be downloaded to the system, with functionality that is platform-agnostic. It does not care whether you purchased an iPhone or a Pixel. Apple doesn't offer anything that competes with its capabilities. CarPlay Ultra's dashboard control integration is limited to an iPhone user. It might serve some of the same uses, but Any UX benefits are lost to most purchasers.
*All that out of the way, watch for a major update to Google's Android smartphone-required Android Auto very soon. Some beta testers are already aware of it We'll soon know if OEM's hold a similar view of Google smartphone-delivered services deeper integration with the dashboard. It won't shock me if they do.
Until Apple can fix the random CarPlay disconnect issues, I don't want CarPlay taking over the entire car. The gauge cluster would be constantly flipping back and forth between the OEM digital gauges and Apple's digital gauges. Error is always the same, 'iPhone is not responding' and have to unplug and plug the phone back in and it reconnects, only to disconnect again, randomly at different times.
Please watch the videos that describe CarPlay Ultra (especially the Aston Martin demo). It doesn't require a permanent connection to your phone. When the phone is paired with the car, all the necessary content is uploaded into the car and runs on the car's own computer (using the operating system provided by the car manufacturer).
Once this is done, you can disconnect your phone. It only needs to remain connected in order to upload updated data, or for accessing apps on your phone (e.g. Music, Phone or Maps), which is presented in a way very similar to today's CarPlay.
Of course, there may be bugs - all software has bugs. But you won't lose your dashboard as a result of the phone losing USB connectivity.
I like the idea of car play, wish I had it in my car, but I don't understand why Apple bothers with it. I assume it's pretty niche and low revenue. Is there a long-term play they need to keep the foot in the door for?
For me at least it’s one more reason to stay in the Apple ecosystem. Now having said that, while CarPlay is a must, CarPlay Ultra is a nice to have.
Comments
Anyway, with all the confusion around Android Automotive and Android Auto, just search "what is Android Automotive" using your favorite browser, so the differences are more clear.
But I do agree that car manufacturers are reluctant to hand over control to an external party who manages the display and its UI for everything that is not music. What if Car Play Ultra drives, for whatever reason, a car critical component in a such a way that the car is about to crash. Who will take responsibility?
The car manufacturer might not have the best skill to develop a great UI on a touch screen, but a car manufacturer has much higher skill level than Apple when it comes to handling car critical exceptions in real time.
CarPlay vanilla or CarPlay Ultra really doesn’t matter as long as our iPhones connect seamlessly.
My only wish for CarPlay would be the music player interface and the way it displays music information, which currently stinks.
It’s clearly designed for pop music with extremely short album, “song” titles and track information.
The fact that track titles are only about 30 characters, on only one line of text, while the playback progress bar uses the entire width of the screen is ridiculous.
This. If you are confused, watch one of the videos.
I see things as Apple trying to limit the advantages of in-vehicle smartphone use to iOS devices since the CarPlay Ultra interface won't work without one, disadvantage anyone who owns not-an-iPhone. Android Automotive doesn't care.
TLDR: Android Automotive works as the UX whether the owner has an Android phone, iPhone, or no phone at all. CarPlay Ultra will not. If my understanding is wrong, feel free to post a correction source.
The car OS, whatever it is, interfaces with either an iPhone or an Android Phone.
If the car OS allows it and the phone is new enough, the driver can take advantage of CarPlay ultra features.
If the phone is older or the car doesn’t allow for CarPlay Ultra features it can still use CarPlay Classic or Android Auto
Note GM uses Android Automotive as an OS for its cars and doesn’t allow either CarPlay or Android Auto.
The compatibility is entirely dependent on the manufacturers implementation and decisions. Likewise, you can use Android Automotive to build either a stellar interface or the world’s crappiest interface. Google just makes the basic OS, the manufactures write the code that runs on it.
CarPlay Ultra is not an OS and is not assuming control of any of the car’s functions. It’s an extension of CarPlay whereby the car OS uses the CarPlay interface. It’s essentially a ‘skin’ for the car displays.
See the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_Automotive
“ In contrast to Android Auto, Android Automotive is a full operating system running on the vehicle's device, not relying on a smartphone to operate.”
This is the essential paragraph. Note I did not reference the OS but instead the UX. I've never stated that CarPlay Ultra is an OS.
TLDR: Android Automotive works as the UX whether the owner has an Android phone, iPhone, or no phone at all. CarPlay Ultra will not. If my understanding is wrong, feel free to post a correction source.
So Is my understanding wrong? Further, Android Automotive allows for vehicle friendly apps to be downloaded to the system, with functionality that is platform-agnostic. It does not care whether you purchased an iPhone or a Pixel. Apple doesn't offer anything that competes with its capabilities. CarPlay Ultra's dashboard control integration is limited to an iPhone user. It might serve some of the same uses, but Any UX benefits are lost to most purchasers.
*All that out of the way, watch for a major update to Google's Android smartphone-required Android Auto very soon. Some beta testers are already aware of it